MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311960855 · doi:10.1017/aae.2022.37

The Impact of Fundamentals on Volatility Measures of Agricultural Substitutes

2022· article· en· W4311960855 on OpenAlexaff
Alankrita Goswami, Berna Karali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContangoEconomicsVolatility (finance)Futures contractNormal backwardationCommodity marketCommodityConvenience yieldSpillover effectFinancial economicsAgricultureCommodity swapMonetary economicsSpot contractMacroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study builds upon the existing literature on the Working curve and backwardation to explore the impact of storage regimes on the volatility measures of substitute agricultural commodity markets. We investigate the impact of commodity fundamentals (storage regime and stocks-to-use ratio), commodity-specific financial variables (options hedging pressure-long and -short), world economic activity, market-wide volatility index, seasonality, and time-to-maturity on nearby and deferred implied volatility (IV) series of selected commodity pairs of corn-soybean and winter wheat-spring wheat. Our work confirms that, in some cases, grain and oilseed IV derived from options premia respond to shocks in commodity (and substitute commodity) fundamentals which are in line with the behaviour of volatility in futures markets. Own-storage regime effects on price variability are stronger in the selected markets, while spillover effects from substitute commodity storage regimes show a modest impact on volatilities. We also find some evidence for the stocks-to-use ratio of both corn and soybean to impact both their own and each other’s IV, while options hedging pressure has some impact only on wheat IVs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207